Aarrrccchhhaaaeeeoool

T H A M E S V A L L E Y AARRCCHHAAEEOOLLOOGGIICCAALL S E R V I C E S S O U T H W E S T

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset

Archaeological Evaluation

by Andy Weale

Site Code: TQS11/118

(ST 5392 2822)

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset

An Archaeological Evaluation

for Ham and Doulting Stone Ltd

by Andrew Weale

Thames Valley Archaeological Services

Ltd

Site Code TQS11/118

December 2011 Summary

Site name: Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset

Grid reference: ST 5392 2822

Site activity: Evaluation

Date and duration of project: 6th –9th December 2011

Project manager: Andrew Weale

Site supervisor: Andrew Weale

Site code: TQS 11/118

Area of site: 6ha within 8.9ha

Summary of results: The evaluation has confirmed that features certainly and probably of archaeological interest exist across the site in the form of ditches, gullies, pits and postholes along with a probable ring gully structure. Artefactual dating evidence was limited to a single sherd of Roman pottery but the character of the deposits suggests that most of them are likely to be of later prehistoric or Roman date.

Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited with Somerset County Museum Service in due course, with accession code TTN CM 101/2011 and PRN 31537.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford9 22.12.11 Steve Preston9 22.12.11

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR

Tel. (0118) 926 0552; Fax (0118) 926 0553; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset An Archaeological Evaluation

by Andrew Weale

Report 11/118

Introduction

This report documents the results of an archaeological field evaluation carried out at Tout Quarry, Charlton

Adam, Somerton, Somerset (ST 5379 2827) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Mr John Salmon of Land and Mineral Management Ltd, The Roundhouse Cottages, Bridge Street, Frome, Somerset BA11 1BE on behalf of Ham and Doulting Stone Ltd.

Planning permission is to be sought from Somerset County Council to extract lias mineral from a 8.9ha parcel of land. The results of a field evaluation have been requested to determine if the site has archaeological potential and if so, to produce information to mitigate the impact of the proposed extraction.

This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy

Statement, Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) and the County Council’s Mineral Plan Policies on archaeology. The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr Steven Membery,

Senior Historic Environment Officer of Somerset County Council. The fieldwork was undertaken by Andrew

Weale, Steve Crabb, David Platt, James Early, Chris Crabb, Aidan Colyer and Jackie Pitt from 6th to 9th

December 2011 and the site code is TQS11/118. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological

Services, South West, Taunton and will be deposited with Somerset County Museum Service, with accession code TTN CM 101/2011 and PRN 31537.

The archaeological potential of the site was revealed by an earlier desk-based assessment (Hollinrake

2011). This indicated Roman finds were common in and around the Charltons and extensive quarrying in these two medieval villages (Charlton Adam and Charlton Mackrell) has revealed masonry associated with Roman finds.

Location, topography and geology

The site is located at to the south of the village of Charlton Adam (Fig. 1), with Charlton Mackrell to the north- west, Babcary to the north-east, the town of Somerton lies approximately 4km to the west and the A37 Fosse

Way (Roman road) lies 750m to the east. The site slopes from around 29m above Ordnance Datum in the west down to 24.5m in the east. It is bordered to the west by the present quarry workings and to the north, east and 1 south by farmland. Currently the site is a large grass covered agricultural field (Fig. 2). An area of the site recorded by geophysical survey (below)is considered to be that of a former pond or old pit. This area of the site was generally flat but the outline could be seen as a cropmark within the grass (Fig. 7). This area was excluded from the evaluation. The underlying geology is mapped as Jurassic Lower Lias Clay with some Limestone (BGS

1973), A mixture of limestone and clays were observed within the trenches.

Archaeological background

An archaeological desk based assessment highlighted the potential of archaeology within the area surrounding the site (Hollinrake 2011). In summary it has noted that Roman finds are common in the area with the site of

Roman buildings to the north at Bull Lawn Lane, Charlton Mackrell and another at Hally Hill to the south-west

The course of the Fosse Way Roman road lies just to the east of the site (Margary 1955). Both Carlton Adam

(Cerletone) and Charlton Mackrell (Cerletune) are mentioned in Domesday Book (AD 1086) (Williams and

Martin, 2002).

A geophysical survey on the site (Haddrell 2011) has identified strong evidence for archaeological features in the form of a probable prehistoric round house and several enclosures. Weaker evidence for archaeological features exists within the site consisting of possible former field boundaries and possible hearth-like features.

The survey also found evidence for magnetic disturbance, possible geological responses, a series of land drains and at least two phases of agricultural activity (Fig. 7).

Objectives and methodology

The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and date of any archaeological deposits within the area of development.

This work was carried out in a manner which did not compromise the integrity of archaeological features or deposits which may warrant preservation in-situ, or which would better be excavated under conditions pertaining to full excavation.

The specific research aims of this project are;

To determine if archaeological deposits of any period are present. To determine if any Iron Age or Roman deposits are present which represent further occupation of this area. To determine if any Iron Age or Roman deposits representing ancillary settlement features such as enclosures, field systems or cemeteries are present. To determine if there is any medieval occupation in the area. To determine the impact of the development on the archaeological resource.

We proposed to dig 19 trenches, 2m wide and between 10m and 50m long (2.0% of available site area). The trenching was specifically positioned to examine the geophysical anomalies thought to be of archaeological origin (Fig.7), but did not initially target the ring gully anomaly. Topsoil, and any other overburden was to be removed by a 3600 tracked machine fitted with a toothless ditching bucket to expose archaeologically sensitive levels, under constant archaeological supervision. Excavation of exposed archaeological features was to be carried out by hand and spoil heaps were to be searched for artefacts. A metal detector was to be used to enhance the recovery of metal finds.

Results

All the trenches were excavated as intended and an additional trench, 20, was excavated after consultation with the Somerset archaeological officer, to examine the possible ring gully revealed in the geophysical survey (Fig.

3). The trenches varied from 10m to 50m long and from 0.35m deep to 0.80m deep; all were 2.1m wide. A complete list of trenches giving lengths, breadths, depths and a description of sections and geology is given in

Appendix 1. A complete list of features investigated forms Appendix 2.

Trench 1 Trench 1 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 25.5m long and 0.50m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.20m of subsoil overlying brown yellow clay with frequent limestone fragments (natural geology).

No archaeological features were present and no finds were recovered. The geophysical anomaly in this area may be a change corresponding to an area of higher limestone content within the clay natural.

Trench 2 (Figs 4 and 6) Trench 2 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 18.6m long and 0.55m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying natural geology overlying bedded limestone(as in Trench 1). Two ditches were recorded. Located at the south end of the trench, ditch 2 was aligned west-east, was over 1.2m wide, 0.80m deep and was filled with mid grey brown clay (53) with occasional limestone, and contained a fragment of iron as well as a piece of modern bottle glass. Ditch 2 could be seen as a cropmark within the grass of the field roughly parallel with the northern edge of the site and could be seen to cross trenches 2, 3, 4 and 5 (recorded as ditches 2, 7, 20 and 15) but did not show on the geophysical survey. At 8m from the south end of the trench, ditch 3 was 4m wide (the ditch was only excavated to 2.2m wide due to the presence of an active land drain) and

0.45m deep, and filled with mid brown silty clay (54) with occasional limestone fragments. No finds were recovered. Ditch 3 was in a similar position and alignment to a large geophysical anomaly.

3 Trench 3 (Figs 4 and 6) Trench 3 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 37.1m long and 0.40m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.20m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying natural geology. At 15m from the south end, ditch 7 was 2.1m wide and

0.4m deep, but could not be bottomed due to flooding. It was filled with mid brown silty clay (58) with occasional limestone fragments. No finds were recovered. Ditch 7 was a continuation of the modern ditch 2 in

Trench 2 and cropmark that crossed the field.

Trench 4 (Figs 4 and 6; Pl. 1) Trench 4 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 38.9m long and 0.40m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.20m of topsoil and 0.20m of subsoil overlying natural geology. Trench 4 contained three ditches (17, 19 and 20), a pit

(18) and a spread (8). Ditch 17 was 2.37m wide, and could only be excavated to a depth of 0.15m when it was below water table. At this depth it was filled with mid grey yellow silt clay (68) but no finds were recovered.

Ditch 19 was 1.6m wide and filled with mid brown silty clay (69) with occasional limestone fragments but no finds were recovered and was unexcavated. Ditch 19 was in a similar position and alignment to a geophysical anomaly. Ditch terminal 18 was 1.3m wide, 0.12m deep and filled with mid brown silty clay (70) with occasional limestone fragments but no finds were recovered. Ditch 20 was 1.5m wide filled with mid brown silty clay (71) and had a fragment of bone recovered from the surface but was unexcavated. Ditch 20 appeared to be a continuation of the ditch/cropmark in Trenches 2 and 3. Spread 8 was 1.50m wide, over 0.15m deep but not bottomed due to flooding, and consisted of dark grey to black silty clay (54) with frequent burnt limestone and charcoal but no finds were recovered.

Trench 5 (Fig. 4) Trench 5 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 34.2m long and 0.60m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.35m of topsoil and 0.20m of subsoil overlying natural geology. Ditch 15 was 1.30m wide but unexcavated due to flooding. It appeared to be a continuation of the modern ditch/cropmark within trenches 2, 3 and 4 and here was filled with mid brown silty clay (66) with occasional limestone fragments. A limestone field drain (16) also crossed this trench.

Trench 6 Trench 6 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 22.7m long and 0.45m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying natural geology. No archaeological features were present nor finds recovered.

4 Trench 7 (Figs 4 and 6) Trench 7 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 50.0m long and 0.40m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.15m of topsoil and 0.25m of subsoil overlying natural geology, which here consisted of brown yellow clay with frequent limestone fragments with patches of red brown silty clay, and yellow brown sandy clay and outcrops of bedded limestone. A ditch, a gully, a post hole and a spread were recorded. Ditch 10 was 1.1m wide, 0.17m deep and filled with mid brown grey clay (61) with occasional limestone fragments but no finds. Ditch 10 was in a similar position and alignment to a geophysical anomaly. Gully 11 was 0.70m wide, 0.10m deep, filled with (62) mid brown grey clay but no finds were recovered. Gully 11 was on the same alignment and position as a geophysical anomaly interpreted as modern agricultural activity. Post hole 13 was 0.31m in diameter and 0.11m deep, filled with red grey clay (64) which showed evidence of burning but no finds were recovered. Spread 12 was 3m wide at the eastern end of the trench and consisted of mid red brown clay (63) but was unexcavated. No finds were recovered from it’s surface.

Trench 8 Trench 8 was aligned ENE - WSW and was 18.2m long and 0.35m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.20m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying natural geology of brown yellow clay to silty clay. No archaeological features were present or finds recovered.

Trench 9 Trench 9 was aligned ENE - WSW and was 33.0m long and 0.55m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.30m of topsoil and 0.25m of subsoil overlying bedded limestone with clay patches natural geology. No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered. Similarly to Trench 1 the geophysical anomalies may be due to a change in the natural geology where the bedded limestone comes though the overlying clay.

Trench 10 (Figs 4 and 6; Pl. 2) Trench 10 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 21.0m long and 0.40m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.18m of subsoil overlying grey yellow clay with limestone natural geology. Gully 1 was 0.65m wide and 0.40m deep and filled with dark red brown silty clay (52) with occasional limestone but no finds were recovered.

Trench 11 (Figs 4 and 6; Pls 3 and 4) Trench 11 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 32.80m long and 0.55m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.25m of subsoil overlying natural geology (as in Trench 1). Ditch 5, gully 4 and post hole 6 were recorded. Ditch 5 was 1.6m wide and 0.38m deep and filled with mid red brown silty clay (56) with occasional limestone fragments but no finds were recovered. Ditch 5 was in a similar position and alignment to a geophysical anomaly. Gully 4 was 1.1m wide, 0.32m deep and filled with mid red brown silty clay (55) with

5 occasional limestone fragments. A single sherd of Roman pottery was recovered from the fill. Gully 4 appeared to continue as gully 1 in Trench 10 and was on a similar alignment as a geophysical anomaly which was detected both to the east and west of the trench but was not plotted crossing the trench itself. Post hole 6 was oval in plan,

0.30m in diameter, 0.09m deep, filled with mid red brown silty clay (57) but no finds were recovered.

Trench 12 Trench 12 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 29.30m long and 0.45m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.26m of topsoil and 0.19m of subsoil overlying grey yellow clay and limestone natural geology. No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered.

Trench 13 Trench 13 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 31.20m long and 0.48m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.30m of topsoil and 0.18m of subsoil overlying grey yellow clay with bedded limestone natural geology. No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered.

Trench 14 (Figs 4 and 6; Pl. 5) Trench 14 was aligned SSW - NNE and was 36.40m long and 0.60m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.26m of topsoil and 0.34m of subsoil overlying yellow grey clay natural geology. Two features were recorded and two field drains also crossed the trench. Gully 9 was 0.92m wide and 0.25m deep and filled with mid brown silty clay

(60) but no finds were recorded. Ditch 23 was 1.28m wide filled with mid brown silty clay (74) but no surface finds were recorded and was unexcavated. Both ditches 9 and 23 corresponded to geophysical anomalies.

Trench 15 Trench 15 was aligned NW - SE and was 36.90m long and 0.60m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.20m of topsoil and 0.40m of subsoil overlying grey yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology. No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered.

Trench 16 (Figs 5 and 6) Trench 16 was aligned WNW - ESE and was 33.0m long and 0.48m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.13m of subsoil overlying grey yellow clay natural geology. The only feature in this trench was ditch 14 which was 1.6m wide and 0.28m deep and filled with mid yellow brown clay (65) but no finds were recovered. Ditch 14 was in a similar position and orientation as a geophysical anomaly and was cut by a modern land drain on a slightly different alignment to the ditch.

Trench 17 Trench 17 was aligned S - N and was 46.30m long and 0.45m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.26m of topsoil and 0.19m of subsoil overlying bedded limestone natural geology. No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered.

6 Trench 18 (Figs 5 and 6; Pls 6 and 7) Trench 18 was aligned W - E and was 27.30m long and 0.35m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.26m of topsoil and 0.09m of subsoil overlying grey clay and limestone natural geology. Ditch (21 and 24) was recorded with a gully (22) on the same alignment which may have been a shallow continuation of the ditch. Ditch 24 was

0.80m wide, 0.48m deep, filled with mid brown silty clay (75) with moderate limestone fragments but no finds were recorded. Ditch terminal 21 was 1.04m wide, 0.30m deep and filled with the same mid brown silty clay

(72) with moderate limestone fragments and contained a single fragment of non-descript fired clay. Gully 22 was

0.32m wide and 0.06m deep and also filled with mid brown silty clay (73) but no finds were recorded. The features within Trench 18 are in the same position and alignment as a geophysical anomaly.

Trench 19 Trench 19 was aligned SW - NE and was 27.60m long and 0.45m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.30m of topsoil and 0.15m of subsoil overlying mid brown grey clay natural geology. A machine dug test pit excavated at the north-east end of the trench to a depth of 0.80m below topsoil showed no change in the underlying geology.

No archaeological features were present or finds were recovered.

Trench 20 (Figs 5 and 6; Pl. 8) Trench 20 was aligned NW - SE and was 10.0m long, with a right-angled return at the SE end of 3.4m, and was

0.47m deep. The stratigraphy consisted of 0.25m of topsoil and 0.22m of subsoil overlying mid yellow brown clay natural geology. A curving gully (25) was recorded which was 0.56m wide, 0.08m deep with a rounded end and was filled with grey brown silty clay (76) but no finds were recorded. Gully 25 was in the same position and orientation as the possible ring gully recorded in the geophysical survey.

Finds

Pottery by Jane Timby

One small fragment of pottery was recovered from the evaluation from a sieved sample of gully 4. The sherd is from a closed form and has a burnished surface slip on an orange, sandy fabric. The piece is very small with no clear diagnostic features but the use of a slip and the character of the firing could suggest a Roman date.

Palaeoenvironmental Assessment by Jo Pine

Eight bulk soil samples of between 3 and 20 litres were assessed for their palaeoenvironmental potential. The samples were from a posthole, gullies, ditches and a spread. The samples had been subjected to standard water flotation and the ‘flots’ recovered using a 0.25mm mesh. The flots were examined under a hand lens at x10 magnification. 7 The potential of the material is very low. Carbonized remains were only identified in one sample [3] from spread 8 (59). This contained one fragment of charcoal over 2mm; the remaining low density of material was very small (less than 2mm in size), so the possibility of species identification is low.

Conclusion

The evaluation has confirmed that features certainly and probably of archaeological interest exist across the site.

Several of the features highlighted by the geophysical survey were confirmed by the trenching, including the presence of a ring gully. Other anomalies were not confirmed and are likely to be intermittent or of geological origin.

Apart from the single sherd of Roman pottery from gully 4 and modern glass in ditch 2, none of the other features excavated contained any dateable artefacts. By its form, the ring gully could be the remains of an Iron

Age or later round house, but this could not be confirmed due to the lack of artefacts. Alternatively it could be a small round barrow or animal pen. The remaining ditches, gullies, pits, post holes and spreads could be of any date though their nature suggests that they are more likely to be of later prehistoric or Roman date.

The site therefore is considered to have archaeological potential.

References

BGS, 1973, British Geological Survey, 1:50000, Sheet 296, Solid and Drift Provisional Edition, Keyworth Haddrell, S, 2011, Tout Quarry, Somerton, Somerset, geophysical report 2889, Stratascan, Upton upon Severn Hollinrake, N, 2011, ‘Archaeological Programme of Works’, Hollinrake Ltd, Glastonbury Margary, I D, 1955, Roman Roads in Britain, London PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, Planning Policy Statement 5, The Stationery Office, Norwich SCC, 2009, Heritage Service Archaeological Handbook, Somerset County Council, Taunton Webster, C J (ed) 2007, The archaeology of South-West England. South West Archaeological Research Framework. Resource Assessment and Research Agenda, Somerset County Council, Taunton Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, a complete translation, London

8 APPENDIX 1: Trench details

0m at South or West end

Trench Length (m) Breadth (m) Depth (m) Comment 1 25.5 2.10 0.50 0–0.25m topsoil, 0.25-0.45m subsoil 0.45m+ brown yellow clay natural geology. 2 18.6 2.10 0.55 0-0.25m topsoil, 0.25-0.40m subsoil 0.40m+ brown yellow clay natural geology. Ditches 2 and 3 3 37.1 2.10 0.40 0-0.20m topsoil, 0.20-0.40m subsoil, 0.40m+ brown yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology. Ditch 7 4 38.9 2.10 0.40 0-0.20m topsoil, 0.20-0.40m subsoil, 0.40m+ brown yellow clay natural geology. Spread 8, Ditches 17 and 20, Pits 18 19. [Plate 1] 5 34.2 2.10 0.60 0-0.35m topsoil, 0.35-0.55m subsoil, 0.55m + brown yellow clay natural geology. Ditch 15 (Drain 16) 6 22.7 2.10 0.45 0-0.25m topsoil, 0.25-.040m subsoil, 0.40m+ brown yellow clay natural geology. 7 50.00 2.10 0.40 0-.15m topsoil, 0.15-0.40m subsoil, 0.40m+ brown yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology. Ditch 10, gully 11, posthole 13, spread 12 8 18.20 2.10 0.35 0-0.20m topsoil, 0.20-0.35m subsoil, 0.35m+ yellow silty clay and bedded limestone. 9 33.00 2.10 0.55 0-0.30m topsoil, 0.30-0.55m subsoil, 0.55m+ bedded limestone natural geology 10 21.00 2.10 0.40 0-0.20m topsoil, 0.20-0.38m subsoil, 0.38m+ grey yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology. Gully 1. [Plate 2] 11 32.80 2.10 0.55 0-0.25m topsoil, 0.25-0.50m subsoil, 0.50m+ brown yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology. Ditches 4 and 5, posthole 6. [Plates 3 and 4] 12 29.30 2.10 0.45 0-0.26m topsoil, 0.26-0.45m subsoil, 0.45m+ grey yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology 13 31.20 2.10 0.48 0-0.30m topsoil, 0.30-0.48m subsoil, 0.48m+ grey yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology 14 36.40 2.10 0.60 0-0.26m topsoil, 0.26- 0.48m subsoil, 0.48m+ yellow grey clay natural geology. Gully 9 and Ditch 23. [Plate 5] 15 36.90 2.10 0.60 0-0.20m topsoil, 0.20-0.60m subsoil, 0.60m+ grey yellow clay and bedded limestone natural geology 16 33.00 2.10 0.48 0-0.25m topsoil, 0.25-0.48m subsoil, grey yellow clay natural geology. Ditch 14 17 46.30 2.10 0.45 0-0.26m topsoil, 0.26-0.45m subsoil, 0.45m+ yellow grey clay and bedded limestone natural geology 18 27.03 2.10 0.35 0-0.26m topsoil, 0.25-0.35m subsoil, 0.35m+ yellow grey clay and bedded limestone natural geology. Ditches 21, 22 and 24 . [Plates 6 and 7] 19 27.60 2.10 Trench 0.45 0-0.30m topsoil, 0.30-0.45m subsoil, 0.45m+ yellow grey clay natural geology. Test pit 0.80 20 13.40 2.10 0.47 0-0.25m topsoil, 0.25-0.47m subsoil, 0.47m+ yellow brown clay natural geology. Gully 25. [Plate 8]

9 APPENDIX 2: Feature details

Trench Cut Fill (s) Type Date Dating evidence 10 1 52 Gully Undated 2 2 53 Ditch Modern Bottle glass 2 3 54 Ditch Undated 11 4 55 Ditch Roman Pottery 11 5 56 Ditch Undated 11 6 57 Posthole Undated 3 7 58 Ditch Modern Cropmark by association 4 8 59 Spread Undated 14 9 60 Gully Undated 7 10 61 Gully Undated 7 11 62 Gully Undated 7 12 63 Spread Undated 7 13 64 Posthole Undated 16 14 65 Ditch Undated 5 15 66 Ditch Modern Cropmark by association 5 16 67 Drain Modern 4 17 68 Ditch Undated 4 18 69 Pit Undated 4 19 70 Pit Undated 4 20 71 Ditch Modern Cropmark by association 18 21 72 Ditch terminal Undated 18 22 73 Ditch Undated 14 23 74 Ditch Undated 18 24 75 Ditch Undated 20 25 76 Ring gully terminal Iron Age? Form

10 Weston-super BATH -Mare

Frome Sheppton Minehead Mallet Bridgewater Glastonbury Wincanton Taunton

Somerton Yeovil Chard SITE

29000

SITE

28000

ST53000 54000 TQS 11/118 Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 1. Location of site within Charlton Adam and Somerset.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 129 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 N

28400

28300

28200

28100

SITE

ST53800 53900 54000

TQS 11/118 Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 2. Detailed location of site.

Crown copyright reserved. Scale: 1:2500 28400

3 2 3 8 (spread) 1 2 7 4 18,19 20 5 15 8 17 16 20 25 9 11,13 7 6 28300 10 12 10

1 4 12 5 11 6

23 28200 16 14 14 9

Area of large infilled hollow

18 21,24 17 22

28100

m 19 7

m 2

2 m 6

2 m 5 2 SITE

ST53800 53900 54000 TQS 11/118

N Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 3. Location of trenches.

0 100m Trench 2 Trench 3

3 2 7

N N 2m 8m 13m 15md 19m r a i n

Trench 4

N 17 19 8 unexc 20 3m 6m 20m 26m 32m dr spread a i spread n 18

N Trench 5 Trench 7

13 16 15 unexc unexc 10 12 7m 10m 28m 30m 12m 14m 24m 11 26m 48m

Trench 10 Trench 11

N 5 12m 18m 21m 7m1 9m N 9m 6 26m 28m

Trench 14

n n 23 i

r N r unexc d

d l 3m 5m 14m l 16m 24m 27m 33m 35m e

e i

TQS 11/118 Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 4. Detail of trenches.

0 5m Trench 16

4m 8m

Trench 18

0m 5m 15m

Trench 18 continued

24 21 22 not visible

15m 20m 25m

N Trench 20

7m 9m

TQS 11/118 Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 5. Detail of trenches.

0 5m Trench 10 Trench 2 SW NE S N 25.86maOD 26.54m

52 53

2 Trench 2 SSW NNE

Topsoil - 50 26.5m

Subsoil - 51

not bottomed 3 Trench 11 Trench 11 Trench 11 NNW SE NW N S24.92m SSE 24.98m 24.96m

57 55 56 6

45 Trench 14 Trench 3 NNE SSW Trench 4 50 50 SW NE 24.94m 51 24.8m 51 25.24m waterlogged 60 58 not bottomed 8 9 waterlogged not bottomed 12 - mod no sec Trench 16 7 WNW ESE Trench 7 Trench 7 Trench 7 WE 50 24.98m WE SE NW 24.93m 24.93m 61 62 64 51 28.17m 10 11 13 15 unexc feature 65 Trench 4 16 unexc feature 14 24.74m 69

17 Trench 4 24.84m Trench 18 Trench 18 70 Trench 18 24.7m 24.7m 24.7m not bottomed 18 19 unexc feature 72 22 73 20 unexc feature 75 23 unexc feature 21 Trench 20 24 S N 24.8m 76

25 TQS 11/118 Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 6. Sections.

0 1m 28400

2 8 (spread) ?ring gully 7 18,19 20 15 17 16 25

11,13 28300 10 12

1 4 5 6

23 28200

14 9

21,24 22

28100

SITE Key 54000 positive anomaly magnetic disturbance

negative anomaly geological anomaly parallel linear anomaly discrete ferrous point anomaly moderate discrete anomaly ST53800 53900 TQS 11/118

N Touts Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Figure 7. Location of trenches, in relation to geophysical anomalies (after Stratascan)

0 100m Plate 1. Trench 4, looking north. Scales: 2m, 1m and 0.5m.

Plate 2. Trench 10, looking north north east, Scales: 2m, 1m and 0.5m. TQS 11/118

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Plates 1 and 2. Plate 3. Trench 11, looking north. Scales: 2m, 1m and 0.5m.

Plate 4. Trench 11, pit 6 looking north, Scales: 0.3m and 0.1m.

TQS 11/118

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Plates 3 and 4. Plate 5. Trench 14, gully 9, looking north west. Scales: 1m and 0.3m.

Plate 6. Trench 18, looking south east, Scales: 2m and 1m.

TQS 11/118

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Plates 5 and 6. Plate 7. Trench 18, ditch terminus 21 looking south. Scales: 1m and 0.3m.

Plate 8. Trench 20, ring gully 25, looking west, Scales: 0.5m.

TQS 11/118

Tout Quarry, Charlton Adam, Somerton, Somerset, 2011 Archaeological Evaluation

Plates 7 and 8. TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43 BC/AD Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC